Journalists still don't know what a recession is

This article about Warren Buffett's view of the economy ends by saying the Omaha billionaire thinks we're already in a recession, adding:

The technical definition of a recession most economists use is two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the nation's gross domestic product.

No, that is not the definition most economists use, or one that any economists use unless they're speaking with clueless journalists. It is certainly not an approved "technical" definition, though it is a useful rough measure. Meaning that, when the economy has two down quarters of GDP, we're very likely in a recession. But there could be two down quarters without a recession, and there can and has been a recession without two down quarters.

The real definition of a recession is: whatever the NBER decides is a recession, is a recession. Their non-technical guidelines are:

"a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."

Normally they decide about a year after the recession has started, hence the desire to figure out earlier if we're in one. Two consecutive negative quarters has been a good yardstick, and we find out only six months in rather than a year. But it wouldn't have done any good to use those criteria during the last recession.

A better way? Listen to these guys. By the way, they, too, say we're already in a recession.